And in another message she allegedly discussed throwing a petrol bomb at the offices of the Charity Commission, which was investigating her conduct.

Details of her bizarre and gruesome exchanges were revealed at an industrial tribunal hearing last week.

Ms Hampton was chief executive of the Disabled Police Officers’ Association (DPOA) until she was suspended by the Charity Commission last year — she later quit the role.

She has taken a tribunal case against the DPOA, alleging constructive dismissal.

And last night Ms Hampton said that her phone had been accessed illegally and that “anyone could have sent the messages”.

She said that the Police Ombudsman was investigating how her phone had been taken from her.

Ms Hampton launched the case against the DPOA after she and several directors were sacked last year amid a Charity Commission investigation into the DPOA following allegations of mismanagement.

At the hearing in Belfast, a solicitor for the DPOA said that she believed Hampton’s case was “vexatious” and had little chance of success.

She told the hearing that Hampton, herself a former police officer, had made the most “appalling and shocking” comments about DPOA board members in text messages sent by her to other directors of the charity.

These messages were also mentioned in a damning judgement from the Charity Tribunal against her former lover and DPOA director, Robert Crawford, details of which Sunday Life published last week.

Last week’s hearing heard how Ms Hampton sent a message to another director of the charity in June last year which read: “If I had a spare Molotov cocktail I would throw it into the Charity Commission when going past Lurgan”.

The Charity Commission, which at the time was conducting an investigation into the affairs of the DPOA of which she was the sole employee, is based in the Co Armagh town.

Another exchange of messages read to the hearing detailed a conversation between Ms Hampton and a director of the charity.

The male director, who was not named, said: “I know this sounds awful but when X was in the car on Thursday, if I had a gun I would have shot that b*****d in the face.”

The director then asked Ms Hampton what she would do to the man and she said: “I would slowly cut through his d*** with a blunt knife, with no pain relief, then make him eat it”.

The solicitor also said that in her messages Ms Hampton repeatedly referred to DPOA board members as “c**ts”.

Emails from Ms Hampton to certain directors of the DPOA were also read out in which they discussed their suspicions that one board member was feeding information to the Charity Commission investigation.

One director suggests planting some “nice and juicy” false information to which Ms Hampton replies: “We could plant something on Wednesday”.

Other messages had Ms Hampton discussing doing a “clean sweep” of the office and asking security personnel to hide a computer hard drive in a safe to which only she knew the combination.

The solicitor explained that when the Charity Commission went to the offices of the DPOA they found the place in “disarray” with confidential papers strewn across the floor.

She added that there was an “extraordinary” lack of documentation and no log-in details provided to access the charity’s financial information.

When the DPOA launched an internal probe they had to employ forensic investigators to gain access to mobile phones and computers as Ms Hampton claimed she had forgotten their passwords.

The solicitor also outlined at the tribunal how Ms Hampton had lied in March last year when she claimed to the Charity Commission that she had no conflict of interest by working for the DPOA.

However, she had in fact been in a relationship with Robert Crawford between 2007 and 2010, but he was not then a board member.

The solicitor also raised the matter of Mr Crawford’s signature being forged on an application for money from the Northern Ireland Police Fund to pay for Ms Hampton’s salary.

The funds had already been secured from another source and neither Mr Crawford nor Ms Hampton have explained how the forgery occurred.

The solicitor for the DPOA contended that Ms Hampton resigned rather than answer questions about her conduct sent to her by an internal DPOA inquiry.

In her summary she said that Ms Hampton’s behaviour had been appalling and rather than being embarrassed she has the temerity to sue her former employers for compensation.

Ms Hampton did not appear at last week’s tribunal hearing.

Ms Hampton’s solicitor was present but explained that she could not act for her as she had received no instructions from Ms Hampton.

Tribunal Judge Elizabeth McCaffrey adjourned the case for clarification to be sought as to whether Elaine Hampton could continue to fund her defence.